Bannon's politics and his efforts to this end in Europe are quite transparent and well articulated in the many recorded interviews and discussions he has participated in.

His simple belief is that democracy is based on group identity, radiating out from community to regional then national identity. The larger the group the greater the extent to which individual freedom and participatory democracy are subsumed by bureaucrats and cultural elites.

Any kind of super nationalism of the type suggested in the article is not only a contradiction of his core beliefs but is something he has repudiated at every opportunity.

Kemal Derviş and Caroline Conroy illustrate the irony of ultra-nationalists like Steve Bannon going global, promoting a new brand of “neo-nationalist international.” Literally, nationalism means excessive or fanatical devotion to a nation and its interests, often associated with a belief that one country is superior to all others. In fact Trump’s “America First” foreign policy is Bannon’s brainchild, and has become his signature brand of nationalism.The former White House chief strategist who helped Trump win in 2016 seeks to unify right-wing parties across the globe, creating a movement of Nationalist International. But Bannon’s immediate focus is on the European elections in May 2019. He aims to establish a pan-European populist foundation that advises rightwing parties and help them win and form the biggest political grouping in the European Parliament.While raising the question “whether one should take seriously the oxymoron of nationalist internationalism,” the authors explain the history of internationalism, which had “generally been the preserve of the left, starting with the French Revolutionaries’ attempts to export their political project across Europe.” To enhance the global appeal of the socialist movement, an anthem, The Internationale, was written in 1871, which has been sung around the world.Following the collapse of the Imperial Russia and after World War I, “the Bolsheviks envisioned the Soviet Union serving as the vanguard of global communism.” But when the communist wave failed to engulf the rest of Europe, Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin rethought their strategy and turned inwards, focusing mainly on the “historic task” of constructing “socialism in one country.” In 1949 Mao created a communist China, which signed a Treaty on Friendship, Union And Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union a year later. Russia took part in more than 160 industrial projects in China. Bilateral ties weakened in the 1960s and ground to a halt as two countries had their ideological differences and vied for supremacy in the communist world. Border clashes took place between Soviet and Chinese troops in 1969. In Europe, “many communist and left-socialist opposition parties” saw the Kremlin as their guide. The authors say the French and Italian Communist Parties, “each of which commanded around one-third of their respective countries’ fragmented electorates.” In Germany, the Social Democratic Party remained true to its Marxist roots until the 1959 Bad Godesberg Congress, whose party program outlined the new political course. In the West, the wolrd order set up by the US “liberalized trade and encouraged others to open up their economies.” More and more emerging economies joined the Western-led order, which helped lift millions out of poverty. China, “a nominally communist country, would eventually embrace Western economic principles in its pursuit of growth.” The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 due to its inability to reform its economy. Since then, “socialism was largely abandoned and replaced by social democracy, which rejected central planning in favor of markets as a mechanism for allocating resources.” But after years of free trade, many in the West blame globalisation for job losses and depressed wages. Their grievances long ignored, the political consequences became evident when Britian voted to leave the EU and Trump won the election in 2016. Campaigning on his “America First” slogan, he vowed to withdraw from major trade deals. “Against this historical backdrop, how should one interpret Bannon’s initiative?” ask the authors. “His objective is certainly not to build a right-wing alternative to the Soviet federation and the Communist International.” Bannon’s idea may well be overrated. He will have little success producing his big radical right alignment, because he knows too little about European politics. And his influence in the US does not necessarily help, given Trump’s low approval ratings in Europe. The authors say “Bannon’s mission, then, is not to improve policymaking or build new institutions for managing the economic and technological challenges of the twenty-first century. Rather, his sole focus is on weakening and, if possible, unraveling ‘liberal-social’ gains, such as the European project.” Indeed, Bannon’s goal would be to destroy the “liberal center-right” and the “liberal center-left,” which had been the “two strains of internationalism” in European politics. But this might just be wishful thinking, because “the center of liberal internationalist thinking” is still robust. Meanwhile the European elections next year will be the bellwether for the Continent’s political direction.

So, let's get this straight. Bannon hates "the left" because he believes it has formed an international conspiracy to meddle in the internal politics of nations, and that this is some kind of conspiracy. One definition of conspiracy is "an agreement made in private to commit an illegal act."

So Bannon's plan is to counteract a belief in a vast left-wing global conspiracy - with a vast right-wing global conspiracy. Conspiracy? Yes, because this has all been coordinated in private (albeit admitted in public) and falls foul of political laws in 9 of 13 European nations and elsewhere. An agreement made in private to commit an illegal act. And to meddle in the politics of other nations!

Oh get out of European politics, you American! You are no more welcome here than Russian interference in American politics! Or is it different, because it's you and you're special and different rules apply?

He is fighting a belief in fire with actual fire. In line with the phenomenon we see everywhere, political movements are using what they believe (or even, want to believe) about those they oppose - to do exactly the same thing themselves. The hard-right believes the hard-left is violent; so they then deploy violence themselves. The hard-left may then respond to actual violence with actual violence.

This is the cycle of escalation and it leads nowhere good. Stop it. Everyone get back within their own borders please, lest this escalate to what started 100 years ago.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

PS OnPoint

The Mueller report in America, along with reports of interference in this week’s European Parliament election, has laid bare the lengths to which Russia will go to undermine Western democracies. But whether Westerners have fully awoken to the threat is an open question.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.